Moving toward Sustainability
Stephen D. Hobbs, John P. Hnyes, Rebeccn L. lohnson, Gordon H. Reeaes,
Thomns A. Spics, nnd Iohn C. Tnptpcittcr ll
lntroduction
period of tremendous
change in hor,r'forest and stream resources were
managed in the Oregon Coast Range. These cl-Langes
were brought about by a number of factors. One of
thc most significant r'r'as increased conceln about
the environment and the r,r'elfare of fish and rvilcllife
species. Application of the Endangcrcd Species Act
to the northerf spotted owl (Strd occiduttnlis) and
its Jisting as threatened, followed by subsccluent
listings of the marblecl murrelet (Brnclnlaruphus
ntLtrntarttttts) and coho salmon (Oncorlr17r'rclrrrs
/clslr/ch), had a profor-rnd impact on management,
particularly on federal forestland. Other federal laws
such as the Clean Water Act, Clean AirAct, National
For€st ManagementAct, and others also have driven
change. Certainly onc of the biggest agents of
change r,r'as the Northwest Forest Plan for Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.
First announced in 1993 and implemented in 1994,
this federal action dramatically redirected how these
lands would be n.ranaged, shifting the focus from
timber harvest to protection of species and habitat.
Although the Northwest Forest Plan contains
pro,,,isions for an actir.e timber harvest program,
albeit at levels significantly lower than those reachecl
in the 1970s and 1980s, interpretation of tl-Le plan
and subsequent litigation have prevented attainment of the harvest levels originally envisioned.
There have been other significant regional
changes as well. The high-technology industry has
become a growing force in Oregon's economy, while
tlrere has been reduction and consolidation among
companies in tl.re wood-products scctor. Moreor.et
wood-processing companies har.e retooled to use
The decade of the 1990s was
a
242
sn.raller logs and have implemented technological
in manufacturing of wood products.
lleductions in availability of harvestable timber
from federal lands have forced companies to rcly
more on wood fron.r their or,r'n lands or from other
private or rronfederal public sourccs (county or state
aclvances
forestlands).
Oregon's demographic landscape has also
will cor.rtinue to
change irr the future. Portland and surrounding
changed ovel the last decacle and
arcas have cxperienced tremendous grovvth, as has
thc Intcrstate 5 corridor between Portland and
Salem. Urbanization and the grorving political
power of urban populations r'r'ill increasingly
influer.rce the manaflement of forests and streams
in the Coast Range. Populaiion grolr'th and the
booming economy of the 1990s have incrcased
tourism and recreatior.r in the Coast Range, par-
ticularly along the immediate coast. As r.isitors
travel to and from the coast, they form opinions
about forest management activities based on the
landscapes they scc. There is also increasing
evidence that Orcgonians are unwilling to accept
declincs in the quality of forest aesthetics, recreational opportunities, salmon, wildlife, or other
forest- and stream-related r.alucs as a result of the
production of r'r'ood products. These opinions and
impressions have political implications, but, as will
be discussed later in this chapter, public beliefs aboui
hort, forest resources shoulcl be managcd ale not
necessalily consistent $'ilh society's consunrption
of wood.
The movement toward sustainability of forest and
stream resources will take time, but many of the
Moving toward Sustainability 243
necessitry components are already in place. Fol
political influences. We have not attempted to
examplc, some steps har.e been taken in this
iclentify specific sustainability objectives for the
direction bv implementation of the Oregon plan, a
Coast Range. Wh.rt constitutes sustainability will
plan fitr the restoratiu.t of salmon ilnd watersheds
evolve tl-Lroug;h time as envirutmental, economic,
in ft,estcrn Oregon (State of Orcgon 1997), the and social conditions change and ner,r' information
formation of watershed councils, and planning for.
becomes at,ailable. The isstres are compler, ancl
the management o{ state forestland in northwcstern
although a specific solution to achieve sustainability
C)regon (Bordelon et al.2000). There is clearly an
i5 nol de\ elop('d in lhe ch.rpter. impor.l.rnt clraiincreasing need for inforrnation sharing and
lenges, prerequlsites, guidelines, and ideas are
coLlaboration among c1i,,,erse landowners and others
discussed.
o11 issues of resource managemcnt and utilization
Lhat transcend property bounderries. More recenth,;
I ntegrated Resource Management,
the C)regon Department of Forestry issr-red Or"ri;orr,.s
Sustainability, and Biological Diversity
First ApprorinnIiott Rcport for Forest Stntaitnbili.ty
Int e gr ate tl res ource m an agement
(Oregon Department of Forestry 2000). This report
reprcsents the first effort by any state to evaluate
Heims (1998) defines inLegrated rcsourcc rnanage
forestl;rnds using internationally agrced criterja ancl
mcnt as "the simultaneorrs consideration of
indicators for the conservation anc-l sustainable
ecological, physical, economic, and socill aspccts
management of temperate ancl borcal forests. These
of lands, r'r'ater, and resoLrrces in devcloping and
criteria and indicatrtrs r.r,ere developed through the
rmplemenling multiple use, sustained-yielcl man
United Natirxrs in resprtnse to the Statement of
agement." ln its simplest form, integr.ation mcans
Forest Principles and Chapter 11 of Agenda 21,
considering all the parts or bringing the parts
rvhich came or,ri of the i992 United Nations
togethcr to create a whole crrtitv h.rtegration is more
Con{crence on EnviLonment and Development
about a process for achieving; goals than the actr-ral
(Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janei(r. Using what
outcomes themselves (Clark ct al. 1999). Moreovcr,
Iras come to be knolvn as the Montreal process, a
within the land managcment context, integraiion
working group met in Geneva in 1994 to develop
can be vieweci as a process for simultancously
the critelia and indicators (Montreal process
considering and meeting divcrse human uses and
Working Croup, 1998a). These were filalized in 1995
values arlri the biophysical attributes of the
in Santiago, Chile, whcn Australia, Canada, Chile,
environmcnt. It is important to understand that
China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Ncw
integration is basically a human process involving
Zealand, the Russian Fecleration, and the United
mutual Jearning, shared decision making, ac
States endorsed the criteria and indicators (Montreal
commodation, ancl coopreration (Clark et al. 1999).
Process Working Group, 1998b).
Integrated resource management is a loosely
h.r this chaptcr we provide a broacl ovcrview of
dcfined decision-making process by r.r'hich stake
tlre chalienges and opportunities associated with
holders consider the many values and factors that
integratecl resoLlrce management and achieving
affect sustainability. This can take many forms and
sustainability in thc Coast l{;rnge. We concur wjth
can consider different spatial and temporal scales.
Clark and others (1999) that integrated r.csourcc
What is important is that people agree to broad
management is a process rather than an end, and
goals, respect other opinions, are flexible irr their
\'\'e suggest thls process is neccssary to achieving
thinking ancl actions, and engage in meaningful
sustainability. As you read the chaptel this concept
dialogtre. Integratcd resource management should
should bc seen as the common thread r,r,oven
include collaboration, cooperation, and an interthrotrgh the discrrssion of different influences
disciplinary approach in the process (Clark et al.
affecting integrated resource management and
1999), necessitatecl in part by the fact that many
sustainability; these influences are the focus of our
influences affecting sustainability transcend
attcntion. We take a big-picturc perspective, because
boundalies.
policies affecting socioeconomic anc-l ccologic;rl
issues in the Coast Range u.'ill be increasingly
affected by the interaction of local, state, regional,
national, and international socioeconomic ancl
244
Forest and Stream Management in the OreSon Coast Range
Sustainability
Much has been written over the last decade about
sustainability. Terms such as sustainable forestry,
sustainable ecosystems, sustainable der.elopment,
and sustainable management abound in the
literaturc. For example, sustainable forestry is
generally accepted to mean forestry that "...must
be ecologically sound, economically viable, and
socially desirable" (Aplet et al. 1993). Helms (1998)
defines sustainablc forestry as, "the practice of
meeting the forest resource needs and values of the
present without compromising the similar cap
ability of future generalions." A discussion of the
various and evoh'ing clefinitions of sustainability
viewed from the anthropocentric, ecocentric, and
contextual perspectives is given by Borchers (1996).
In a more recent report, Fkryd and others (2001)
address forest sustainability; they includc case
studies and an annotated bibliography. Scveral
common ideas underlie the concepts of sustainability, sustainable development, and sustainable
forestry:
(1) Economic, social, political, and ecological,/
biophysical environmental factors are integral parts
of sustainability.
(2) Human activities today should not limit
options for fr-rture €ienerations.
(3) There are limits on the proclucts ancl values
that can be delived through time from forest and
stream ecosystems without jeopardizing ecosystem
integrity and lesilience.
(4) There is a balance between what ecosystems
can safcly produce (without jeopardizing ecosystem
integrity and rcsilicnce) and the demands humans
make on them (Bormann et al. 1994).
Interest in the issue of sustainability has not been
restricted to the United States; cor-Lsiderable
international attention has been focused on the
subject (Schlaepfer 1992; Montreal Process Working
Croup 1998a, 1998b). In 1995, the Santiago Declaration, issued by Montreal Process member
countries (Montreal Process Working Group 1998a),
contained ser.en national-level criteria on what
should be considered important to the conservation
and sustainable management of temperate and
borcal forcsts: (1) conservation of biological
diversity; (2) mainter.rance of productive capacity of
forest ecosystems; (3) maintenance of forest
ecosystem health and vitality; (4) conserr.ation and
maintenance of soil and water resources; (5)
maintenance of forest contribution to global carbon
cycles; (6) maintenance and er rancement of krngterm multiple socioeconomic benefits; and (7) legal,
institutional, and economic framework for forest
conservation and sustainable management.
These criteria and the 67 indicators that accompany them were developed because of growing
concern over the futurc of tcmperate and boreal
forests ancl thelr continuing ability to meet the needs
of future generatiol-s. Although all the criteria are
equally important, we will examine just one of them,
the conservation of biological diversity, as an
example of how a criterion might be measured and
used in an evaluation of Coast Range forests.
The conseraation of biological diaersity
The conservation of biological diversity is a key
building block for sustainability, and achieving it is
one of the most challcnging problems facing
policymakers, comnunity leaders, and scientists
today. Like sustainability, there are different
definitions of the conservation of biological
diversitv Helms (1998) defines biological di\.ersity
(biodiversity) as, "the variety and abundance of life
forms, processes, functions, and structures of plants,
animals, and other living organisms, including the
relative complexity of species, communities, gene
pools, and ecosystems at spatial scales that range
from local through regional to gkrbal." Biological
diversity can be viewed at three levels, all of which
are necessary: genetic diversity, species diversity,
and commtrnity-level diversity (Prir.nack 1993).
Inte€fration of ecological and socioeconomic
values into forest management requires methods tcr
describe the different dimensions of forest ecosystems and to visualize the consequences of
different mana€iement actions. Characterizing the
complexity ofbiological diversity (the variety of life
and ecosystems) in terms of measures and hdicators
is a relatively new and rapidly developing field.
Consen ation biologists have devised various
strategies for sustaining biokrgical diversity. These
strategies har.e been classified into two general
types: "fine-filter," which deals r,r.ith individual
species, ar.rd "coarse-filter," r'hich deals with
communities and landscapes (Noss 1987). The
"filter" in these cases is the conservation strategy
and hon'well it captures different paris of biological
diversity in its safety net.
Moving toward Sustainability 245
At its most fundamental level, conservation of
biological diversity is based on sustaining populations of all native, and in some cases desired
nonnative, species in a region, including imPortant
genotypes. A fine-filter approach may be the most
direct method to achieving this goal because it
focuses on species such as those at risk (northern
spotted owl) or others that play important roles in
ecosystem functioning (beaver). Howevet it is the
least comprehensive method because it is not
possible to use a fine-filter approach for all species
of a region. We know too little about the ecology of
many individual species, and there are simply too
many species to create databases and management
plans for each one.
Biological diversity also exists at higher levels of
biological organization, the levels of communities
and ecosystems. These entities not only have value
in their own right but also provide a foundation for
conservation ofindividual species dependent on the
habitats and ecosystems in which they occur. The
coarse-filter approach is based on maintaining a
diversity of vegetation types and the natural
disturbance regimes that created them. Without
attention to disturbance, succession, and stand
development, conservation strategies will uliimately fail. For example, many forest types such
as oakwoodlands require relatively frequent patchy,
surface fires to thin out invading conifers and
maintain their characteristic composition and
structure. The disadvantage of the coarse-filter
approach is that it may not capture some individual
species with narrow habitat requirements or some
endangered species that require special conservation efforts. In addition, for many landscapes
the disturbance history of the ecosystems may not
be known well enough to provide a good template
for active management. Consequently, a combination of fine- and coarse-filter approaches is
typically needed in regional conservation strategies.
Current conservation strategies in the Coast
Range are a mix of fine- and coarse-filter approaches.
Habitat-conservation plans for the northern spotted
owl and species-viability assessments that were
done for the Northwest Forest Plan by the Forest
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT
1993) are examples of fine-filter approaches,
methods that focus on conservation of individual
species. Coarse-filter approaches are exemplified by
the aquatic-conservation strategy of the Northwest
Forest Plan and structure-based management
approaches being implemented on state forests in
northwest Oregon (Bordelon et al. 2000). It is unclear
how the relative mix of these strategies will change,
or how they will be combined in future management
and policy efforts that focus on sustainable forestry.
Recent plans for federal lands have placed considerable emphasis on fine-filter approaches such
as the "survey and manage" component of the
Northwest Forest Plan. This has been driven by
concern that coarse-filter approaches may place too
much risk on individual, poorly known species such
as some species of mollusks and fungi. However,
there is limited knowledge of the biology of many
species, which makes it impractical to rely on a
species-by-species approach. In addiLion, recent
studies of fire history in the Coast Range (Wimberly
et al.2000), while validating the relatively high
abundance of old-growth forests over the last
several thousand years, also demonstrate the
dynamic nature of these ecosystems. Long-term
strategies to conserve biological diversity in this
region will need to include landscape planning
across all ownerships. This planning should include
strategies for using disturbance to provide for all
stages of forest succession.
Forest management increasingly considers
biological diversity. For example, in the last 10 years,
new forestpolicies that directly or indirectly address
biodiversity have been implemented on all ownerships in the Coast Range (the Northwest Forest Plan,
revisions to the Oregon Forest Practices Act, plans
for state forests). These new efforts are a blend of
fine- and coarse-filter approaches. Coarse-filter
approaches have been applied at multiPle sPatial
scales. At the stand level, harvesting, reforestation,
and thinling have been modified on many sites to
follow natural disturbance regimes more closely or
to provide habitat components, such as individual
old trees, snags, krgs, and complex vertical and
horizontal structlrre in upland and stream ecosystems (see Chapters 5 and 7). At the landscape
level, silvicultural treatments on federal and state
lands are now scheduled with the goal of maintaining connectivity and providing some large
blocks of interior forest and a range of age classes.
Watersheds provide a basis for multi-ownership
planling that involves a mixture of voluntary and
regulatory approaches to achieve watershed goals.
Although we have learned much about conserving biological diversity in the Coast Range, we
must remember that our knowledge and manaS;e-
246
Forest and Stream Manag,ement in the OreSon Coast Range
ment practices contain a dose of uncertainty While
this should not prevent us from taking actlons to
Bureau of Land Management manage apProximately 26 percent of the forestland in the Coast
conserve biological diversity and produce other
values from our forests, it should serve as a cautic-tn
against assuming we know all the answers, or that
Most of the state forestland is managed by the
only one approach is the best The management
approaches we use today may not be the best ones
in the future. The challenge for managers and the
public is to find a balancc between the long-term
strategies needed to manage these forest ecosystems
and the coursc corrections that will bc needed along
tl.re way as scientific information, social I'alues,
economics, and institutions change.
Changing Realities in the
Oregon Coast Range
During the last several decades, there has been a
shift to jncreased regulation of forest and stream
resources, through state and federal law and
incrcased a\{'areness of nonconsumptil'e-tesource
values. This resulted from three factors acting in
conccrt. First, research increased understanding of
ecosystems, irrcluding biophysical Processes/
species-environment interactions, and tl.re effects of
management activities on species and ecosvstems'
This knor'r4edge raised awarencss of species decline,
environmental degradation, arrd the importance of
ecosystem resilience, inteElrity, and biodiversitv'
Sccond, rising public concern for the environment
and increased appreciation for use of nonconsumptive fotest resources raised the visibility of
environmcntal issues Firrally, the environmental
movement has beer-L a powerful political force tl-rat
has significantly inflttenced environmerrtal and land
rnarragement policies thlough the legislative process
and litigation. Thcse trends are likely to continue in
the immediate future and u'ill affect how forests and
streams are managed.
forcsl conditions
The Coast Range is an ever-changing mosaic of
forest conclitions drivcn in part by socioeconomtc
and political forces that influence landon'ner
actions. Maior forestland-owner groups are the
federal land management agencies (Forest Service
and Bureatt of Land Management), the lorest
industry, the State of Oregon (principally thc Oregon
Department of Forestrv), and nonindustrial private
forest owners. Collectively, the Forest Service and
Range, and the State of Oregon manages 11 Percent'
Oregon Department of Forestry. The forest industry
owns an estimated 40 percent of the forestland,
wl.rile norrindustrial private forest and woodlancl
owners mana[fe an estimatcd 21 percent A]l other
owners hold less than 2 percent of the forestland
(Bettinger et al. 2000).
The nature of these forests is likeJy to change
considerably in the next several decades. These
changes will occur because of (1) policies and
practiccs of landowners and the applicable laws and
regulations under which they operate, (2) tl.re legacy
of past forest practices, and (3) society's changing
views of forests and uses of forestlands. For
example, there will be incrcasing contrast between
federal and industrial forestlands. Fedelal forests
will be characterized by ir.rcreasing amounts of older
star.rds, while industrial forests will be considerably
younger, with harvests on relatively short rotations'
It has been hypothesized that existing policies will
result in increased edge effects and decreased size
of core ateas over time (Spies et al in press).
In addition, disturbance agents such as Swiss
needle cast disease may play a role in shaping future
forests of the Coast Range. It is difficult to predict
future specific conditions of forests with a high
degree of confidence because of unforeseen changes
in policy or economic conditions, but the followlng
general trends seem likely to occur over the next
several decades.
Fedetal fotests
Implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan in
1994 dramatically changed management of Foresi
Sen'ice and Bttreau of Land Management lands in
the range of the northern spotted owl in Washington, Oregon, and California. Tuchmann an'l
othels (1996) provide an excellent summary of
events leading up to the Northwcst Forest Plan and
a descriptior.r of how the plan was developcd and
implemerrtecl. The penduJtrm has swung from an
emphasis on timber harvest to an emphasis on
protection of Properly functioning ecosystems and
restoration of degraded ecosystems and populations
of at-risk species. The plan is one of the first and
most comprehensive attemPts to use principles ot
ecosystem management and conservation biology
Mot ing tow ard
to guide management ofa large area of federal
lands.
Prior_ to the plan, timber hirvesting over
many
decades had decreased the amount o1 old_growtir
b-r^I.* rhan 50 percent (Bolsinger and
l:*:r:.
wadett iqqi) and
had lhreatened species and
ecological processes associated with those eco_
systems (FEMAT 1993). Marry innovative elements
of ecosystem management and conservation
biology
were included in the plan. For example, landscap?
and watershed-scale designs *"." d".,"lopej to
malntaln or restore large patches of interior old_
growth habitat, connectivity, and aquatic
ecosystems, and adaptive_management areas
were
created to demonstrate and test new approaches
forest management.
to
Although the Northwest Forest plan was in-
tended to stabilize the flow of federal timber
to mills
at a lower level than historic harvests, since
its
implementation relatively little timber has in fact
been harvested from federal lands. Several factors
have decreased the level of timber production
from
what was originally intended, especially the late
addition to the plan of special protection for rare
plants, tungi, and animals. Insufficient time has
passed to fairly judge whether goals related
to
protection of the environment will be achieved,
although it seems reasonable to speculate that
improvements in habitat conclitions for many
species will be realized, particularly for those
associated with older forests. If left unaltered,
the
plan will dramatically increase the amount
of olcler
lorests on federal lands over the next 100 years
(Bettinger_et al. 2000; Spies et al. in press).
However,
some of these older forests may not provide
the
habiLat r:sociated with original old_growth
forest
will)out stdnd-den5ity m.rnagement {s;e Chapter Z).
Appro\imdtelv 80 percent of federal furestlands
in lhe Coasl Range are either irr reserve stalus (no
timber harvest) or other land_allocation des_
rgnations in which only thinning is allowed
to meet
ecological goals such as maintaining or producing
iale-succes,iorr.rl and ripari.rn stand, tBettinger
et
al. 2000). Many ot the,s l,rnl5 currently support
young forest stands. The future of these siands'and
lhe e\tent to.which they achier e current
objectir es
oepcnd o Lhe trealments thcy receire in the
nert
several decades. Thinning would enable
them to
produce large trees and eventually achieve
some of
lhe ch.t r,r( leri5tic' of old-growth fore, t. (see
Chapter
/). ll trces were lell at lriglr densities, these stand>
would produce high yields of wood. Hower.er,
tree
Sustainabilit,,
247
srzes would be small, understory development
would be minimal, and these stands woujd not
develop in the same way or at the same rate as
current old-growth stands. As a consequence,
rt rs
questionable whether these stands would
achieve
the same level of structural diversity as is
found in
current old-growth stands.
State of Oregon forests
The vast majority of state forestlands in the
Coast
Range are_managed by the Oregon Department
of
Forestry. These forestlands are managed^for
an array
of economic, environmental, and social benefiti,
including timber harvest and hence revenue lor
local
taxing districts, counties, and the State of Oregon.
Most of the stands are less than g5 years in "age,
although stands of older timber cin be fouid
throughout many of the lands. The Oregon Depart_
ment of Forestry's,,structure-based ma-nagement,,
approach to the management of state forest"lands
in
the.northern Oregon Coasl Range i, dn ,rttempt
to
achieve landscapes with diverse forest structure,
including old-forest habitat characteristics, aJong
with r.rood production, through a combindtion
ol
sld nd -d€n>ity md nagemenl, regeneration
methods,
a1a diffelent latch sizes and placement integrated
at multiple spatial scales (Bordelon et al. 2006).
For
example, one of the goals is to maintain 20 to
30
percent of the forested landscape in older forest
structure. It will take time to evaluate whether
this
new approach is successful in achieving the multiple
objectives identified in the plan.
Industrial forests
Industrial forestlands are intensively managed for
the production of wood fiber and are do-inuted
by
yourg even-aged stands typically les> tharr l00years
old. However. an increa>ing number of companier
are actively seeking the der.eloprnent oi new
practices that will enhance other forest ancl
stream
resou rce val ues w h ile
a llow ing for profild blc timber
hdrve5l. Mdny companie* har e inve,led in rerearr
h,
such as the Coastal Oregon productivity Enhance_
ment (COPE) Program (see Chapter 1), to develop
silvicultural and otl.rer practices that allow timber
lrarvest while enhancing fish, wildlife, and
otl.rer
resource values. The management of nontimber
resources is a growing trend and is best exemplified
by the American Forest and paper Association,s
248
Forest and Stream Management in the Ore€ion Coast Range
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (Berg and Cantrell
1999). Members are required to follow principles,
objectives, and performance measures consistent
with the lntemational Standarcls Organization 14001
Environmental Management Systems Standard.
Silvicultural practices will vary among industrial
Historically, since 1975, harvest from NIPF lands
has been relatively stable, but this changed in the
owners; howevet on many ownerships there is
likelv to be iniensiVe control of noncrop \.egetation,
early thinning, and fertilization to achieve desired
tree sizes (often in the range of 76 to 24 inches in
diameter at breast height) within 40 years. Some
companies mav grow trees on longer rotations for
large logs and special markets. Howevet current
technologv enables the efficicnt manufacttrring of
relatively small logs into beams, siding, and other
products. The role that market-based incentives,
srrch.r: llrird-part) certificJliorr or "green certification," will play in influencing future silvicultural
practices and other forest operations is unknown.
There is grou'ing interest in the retail business to
sell wood products certified as produced by
environmentally responsible methods or from
years, harvest levels declined to more normal levels
seen prior to that year. Favorable stumpage prices
and increased dcmand created by declining timber
sustainable forests.
Currently Swiss needle cast discase, as well as root
diseases, are recognized as biological agents that will
have important impacts on futttre forcsts (see
Chapter 8). lf so, attention may be increasingly given
to growing stands of mixed species composition as
a buffer against diseases that could have a major'
impact on the forest. Species mixtures of Douglasfir, western hemlock (Tsuga lrctcropltlllir), western red
cedar (.TLruja plicnin), ancl red alder (AIttrLs rubrn) are
being considered as possible mixed stands on some
private and public forestlands. Use of cottonrt'ooct
(I']oprlrrs spp.) plantations and the introduction of
exotic species glown on I0- to 20-year rotations for
intensive wood production cottld possibly increase
on valJey-bottom sites. Howe\.er, the extent to which
this actually happens n'ill depend on economic
factors and an evaluation of the potential environmental consequences. Whether genetically
engineered trees are used will depend largelv on
public acceptance.
As the socioeconomic characteristics of Oregon's
population change, public opinior-L about hon'
forests are managed will likely have an incleasing
influence on forest practices and the laws tlrat
regulate them. This may be largely driven bv an
increasing urban population whose attitudes about
forests and their utilization are changing. Using
voting data from the 1996 Oregon Ballot Measure
6rl (Oregon Forest Conservation Initiative) and
Nonindustrial prio
ate
forests
Althotrgh largely dominated by Douglas-fir
(
P se ud
otsu gn
m
ettlcsll), nonindustrial private forests
with a wide rangc in stancl age and
structure. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF)
owners have many objectirres and own their
forestland for many reasons. Consequently, no
are cliverse,
single stereotype can bc used to characterize NIPF
on'ners. Johnson and others (1997) surveyed NIPF
owneLs in western Oregon and Washington and
reported that 73 percent of respondents identificd
the enjoyment of owning green space as an
important or very important reason lor ownlng
forestland. Fifty-five percent identified timber
production as an important or very important
reason for ol\'ning forestland. Interestingly, nore
third of the responclents inclicated that timber
production was less important or not important at
all. Hor'vevet the studv found size of ownership rt'as
associated rvith certain owner attjtudes; o\{ners
with larger amounts of forestland regarded timber
production as an important reason for owning the
land. Moreover, owners ',\'ith large acreages
indicated the)r might harvest sooner than planned
because of potential regulations.
than
a
early 1990s. Starting in 1992, annual timber haruest
from NIPF lands started to increase, rt'ith an
unusually high peak harvest reached in 1993
(Lettman and Campbell 1997). In the following
harvest frorn federal lands probably contributecl to
these increased harvests on NIPF lands.
Between 1961 and 199'1 over 600,000 acres of
nonindustrial forestland were acquired by the forest
industry (Zheng and Alig, 1999). Tlre significance
of this shift in ownership and whether this trend
continues today are unknown. Howet,er, it is likely
these newly acquired lands will be managed on the
even-age, single-species, short-rotation basis typical
of most industrial ownerships.
Other inlTuences
Mo\ inp loward Su'tJinability 249
research by others, Kline and Armstrong (2001)
discuss how changes in Oregon,s population are
associated with increased concern for forest_related
values other than the production ofwood products.
Citing other research, they note that Oregonians are
becomtng more disconnected from the forest
industry and that an increasingly affluent and urban
population may have a more envrronmental
orlentation. In addition, increasing numbers of
urban dwellers may move to more rural settings
seeking an improved quality of life, a proceis
referred to as exurbanization (Egan and Lulolf2000),
this mo\.ement also may affect forest policies
because of the values the migrants bring with them
to local communities (Egan and Luloff 2000).
or development. tees were also cleared from these
areas. Trees were harvested to the edge of streams
in upstream areas until 1.972 when the first State
Forest Practices Act was implemented. In the 1950s
and 1960s there were also programs developed and
directed by fish biologists to remove wood from
channels, based on the belief that wood impeded
the movement of fish. These activities and the
lingering impact of earlier activities have left the
majority of Oregon coastal streams in a degraded
state, and thus they do not furnish favorable habitat
for anadromous salmon and trout.
Many streams on public and private lands in the
Coast Range are currently in poor condition. Thorn
et al. (2000) found that streams lacked woody debris
and pools and had elevated levels of fine sediments
Stream conditions
Coastal Oregon streams and rivers have undergone
large changes in the past 150 years. Historically,
streams and rivers had large concentrations ofwood
in all parts of the stream network. Early explorers
and settlers reported massive jams, which were
often difficult or impossible to pass over. Low_
graclient valley bottoms had well-developed
off-channel areas, often with multiple channels ihat
grew larger or smaller in size depending on the
season. These areas were often sites of large beaver
concentrations and probably were the sites of
greatest anadromous salmon and trout production
in the watershed.
The valley bottoms were among the first areas to
be settled by Euro-Americans, who cleared veg_
etation, drained wetlands, and diked channels to
create homesteads and farms. They cleared large
wood and boulders out of channels to facilitaie
movement up and down streams and rivers of all
sizes. As timber harvest developed, splash dams
were placed on many coastal streams. These were
structures that spanned the channel and ponded
water behind them. Cut logs were dropped into the
pond or floated to the pond from upstream. At high
flows, the dam was opened or blown up and tf,e
logs carried downstream to processing mills. The
consequences of these activities included a decrease
in the quantity and quality of fish l-rabitat and a likely
decline in fish production in streams with these
dams.
Modern activities have also impacted Oregon
coastal streams. The lower portion of almost every
rir.er has been diked or drained for agricultural use
and degraded riparian conditions. Only about
6
percent of stream reaches surveyed were considered
ofhigh quality. Urban, nonforested, and agricultural
lands represented the poorest habitat conditions in
the survey area, which included streams south of
the Columbia River flowing into the pacific Ocean.
These areas of low-gradient streams have his_
torically provided the most productive freshwater
habitat for salmonids (Thorn et al. 2000).
The degraded condition of coastal Oregon
streams is a maior factor associated with the current
decline in anadromous salmon and trout. Currently,
coho salmon along the entire Oregon Coasi,
steelhead on the south Oregon Coast, ancl chum
salmon in the lower Columbia River, are listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Fall
Chinook salmon and coastal cutthroat trout were
evaluated by the National Marine Fisheries Service,
but their numbers were sufficiently large that a
listing was averted. A suite of factors, including
variable ocean conditions, a decline in the quantity
and quality of freshwater and estuary habitats, ani
the impact of genetic practices, are associated with
the status of these fish (Nehlsen et al. 1991), but
habitat alteration is the most common factor
associated with the decline ofindividual species and
populations.
Whether stream conditions in the Coast Range
will improve is uncertain. While the Oregon plin
has been a positive step toward improving fish
habitat, much remains to be done, paiticularly for
low-gradient streams. Streams on federal land.s are
likely to improve the most, primarily as a result of
the riparian requirements in the Nortl-rwest Forest
Plan. However, improvements rn some areas may
250
Forest and Siream Management in the OreSon Coast Range
be limited because of the reluctance of managers
ancl decision makers to undertake or allow silvicultural activities in riparian areas as described in
Chapter 7, and by the lack of economic incentives
to do these things.
The IndependentMr.rltidisciplinary Science Team
(1999) concludecl that current rules of the Oregon
Forest Practices Act and measures of the Oregon
Plan are insufficient to achieve the mission of the
Orcgon Plan (recovery of wild salmonid stocks in
coastal Oregon streams). Current riparian rules are
insufficient to impror.e riparian areas because of the
restricted size of riparian management zoncs and
the numbel of trees that maybe removed from them.
Also, currcntly little consideration is girren in current
Oregon Forest Practice rules to riParian areas along
non-fish-bearing streams. However, as of this
writing, changes to the riparian mles that would
result in improved conditions are under
consideration.
Streams in the lower portions of river systems,
which historically have been areas of high fish
procltrction, are even less likely to produce fish in
the future than streams in tl-Le forested upper and
middle portions of the network. Today these areas
are primarilv in urban and agricultural settings, and
the potential for improving fisl-r l-Labitat conditions
is limited. Holvevet with innovative approaches to
planning and economic incenti\.es that encourage
landowners to improve fish habitat, this could
change.
Somc private landowncrs have made substantial
changes in thc manag;ement of sclected watersheds,
but these co\rer only a relativcly small portion of
the Coast Range. Since the condition of streams is
determir.recl to a large extent by ownership patterns,
there will likely be large gaps in the distribution of
streams with conditions favorable to anadromous
salmonids and other native fish. Many streams at-td
r'r'atersheds simply will not contribute to the
recovery of deprcssed fish populations unless
significant steps are taken, sr-tch as those rec
omncnded b1, the hrdcpendent Multidisciplinary
Scicnce Team (1999). One of that tcam's recommendations $'as that actions at indiviclual sites
w,ere in and of themselr.es not adequate, and that a
lar.rdscape perspectir.e utilizing landscape analysis
should be used as a framework for policv formulation. This reinforces poinis macle later in this
chaptel that landscape-level planning and crossboundarv coopelation will be neccssary to achieve
sustainabilitv
Challenges Facing Policymakers
Forest ancl stream management policies have been
subject to major changes, largely duc io a better
undcrstanding of species and ecosystems and
changing socioeconomic pressures that har.e played
out in our political system. In the last 50 years, public
concern has shifted from providing cheap building
materials and other wood products for a rapidly
growing population to protectin€i nonconsumpti\.e
goods and experiences. Bui while an increasing
percentage of our society demands protection of
forest and stream resources, our appetite for wood
products has dramatically increased (Force and
Fizzell 2000)..The contradictory position of consuming more while simultaneouslv clenranding
increased conscn'ation throuS;h preservation and
regulation makes the formulation of meaningful
policy difficult for any level of government. More
ominous are the ramifications of human globalpopulation growth and associated increases in the
consumption of the world's natural resiturces.
Globalization, population grorlth, and
demands on resources
World economies have become it.rcreasingly
interconnected jn the twentieth century and $'ill
become mote so in the twenty-first. Ectlnomic
interdcpendencies span the range of geopolitical
scales from local to international. Improvements in
communications, computing, data managernent,
and transportation systems, as r,r'cllas reducecl trade
barriers, have facilitated devclopment of a global
economy. Changes in the cconomies of trading
partners can influence interest rates, investment
opportunities, and other components of the United
States ecor.romy. Gkrbal trends and international
events will increasingly affect even the most remote
communities in the United States (Cinnamon et al.
1999). What happens in communities of the Coast
Ilange is affected by what happens irt the state,
regional, national, and gktbal scales. For example,
as demand for u'ood products incrcases in the
Pacific Northwest, the cost of imported n'ood could
influencc local markets and the well-being of
forestland or'vnets in thc Coast Range. Forest
resources arc traded on a i,r'orldr,r,'ic1e markei, and
what occurs in ore region has a ripple effect through
other regions (Secljo et al. 1999). An example of this
point is
tl-Le
implcmentation of the Northwest Forest
Moving toward Sustainability 251
PIan and its subsequent effects on timber supply
and prices and on the transfer of environmental
impacts to other regions (Sedjo et al. 1999).
Key among the factors that will affect demand
for wood is human-population growth (Brooks
1997). Although a worldwide shortage of raw wood
material has been avoided by the substitution of
other materials and increised technological
efficiencies (Lippke and Bishop 1999), there are
concerns about the relationship between worldpopulation growth and the demand for wood
products. How the supply and demand for these
products is distributed among developed and
developing countries is also of concern, particularly
as it relates to potential environmental impacts in
developing countries.
Clobal-population growth and increased gross
domestic product and per capita income in both
developed and developing countries will continue
to drive demand for wood products, perhaps at an
unsustainable rate. Compounding the problem is
the fact that forests are being converted to other uses,
particularly in developing countries. The Food and
Agriculture Organization (1999) estimated that
between 1990 and 1995, the world's forests decreased by 139.1 million acres. This included an
increase of 21.7 million acres in developed countries
and a decrease of 160.8 million acres in developing
countries. Unfortunately, many developing countries lack actively enforced laws requiring adequate
reforestation or other forest practices to ensure
resource renewal and environmental protection.
Another important concern is the potential
impact of environmental policy in the United States
and how it may influence resource utilization in
other countries (Sedjo 1993). In 1993, Aplet and
others (1993) cautioned against exporting domestic
environmental problems and suggested greater care
should be taken in balancing domestic supply and
consumption of wood fiber. Six years after Sedjo
(1993) and Aplet and others (1993) published their
papers, Cohen (1999) echoed the same warning:
"American planners, managers, and citizens must
consider the global perspective, even if they are
concerned only to protect American resources and
interests, because the United States is and will be
intimately linked to the rest of the world. In future
American land use and forestry, purely domestic
factors will increasingly have to be balanced against
demographic, economic, environmental, and
cultural influences that originate outside of
American boundaries." This point is particularly
well illustrated by changes in federal forest
management policy in the Pacific Northwest during
the early to mid-1990s, which had impacts well
beyond the region (Sedjo et al. 1999). This issue is
particularly important given the recent projection
that "America's appetite for timber will continue to
grow, and consumption will exceed domestic
harvest over the next 50 years (Adams 2002).,,
public aalues,
pria ate-property rights debate
The
The widely recognized tension that exists between
advocates for the public good and advocates for the
rights of private-property owners is a fundamental
issue that must be recognized and addressed more
satisfactorily than is currently the case. In the Pacific
Northwest as in other parts of the country, the Clean
Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts, as
well as changing state regulations, have intensified
the debate. Central to this issue are the questions o{
what constitutes a "taking" and how to interpret
the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which
states, "...nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation." Much has
been written about this issue (Achterman 1993;
DeCoster 1994; Flick 1994; Cubbage 1995; Flick et
al. 1995; Lewis 1995; Zhang 1996; Meidinger 1997).
The key question is whether public values and the
public good take precedence over private-property
rights in disputes that involve resources that know
no property boundaries. Should management
activities that negatively impact other ownerships
or public values be protected by federal, state, or
municipal law? This issue has often been resoh.ed
through legislation and court actions in favor of the
public good. Despite these outcomes, the strong
beliefs held by advocates for private-property rights
have not been dampened.
Fundamental to this issue is the potential
dissonance between ownership and natural boundaries. The needs of many fish and wildlife species
(northern spotted owl, coho salmon) transcend
property boundaries, as do physical environmental
attributes (clean air and water) and values (aesthetics). The ecological literature is relatively clear
in its condemnation of situations where ecological
and social boundaries do not match (Meidinger
1998). Meidinger describes how boundaries make
coordination difficult, slow the exchange of
'5
'
lornst and slfeJm MJrdsemenl in lhc .)rp8un CoJ'l Range
information, and spur organizations to realize
benefits while externalizing their costs. Howevet
Meidinger, citing other authors, also describes the
and ultimately decreasing sustainability. They
suggest that economically driven enterprises and
environmental movements, focused primarily on
positive aspects of such boundaries. Boundaries can
regulation and. prohibition, can also represent forms
of command and control.
Significant benefits to animal and plant species,
impede the effects of inappropriate policies or
disturbance, thus allowing time for appropriate
adjustments to be made (Naiman and Decamps
1990; Morehouse 1995). Boundaries also clearly fix
responsibility for management actions and subsequent consequences of those decisions (Ellickson
hclp define who needs
information (Williamson 1985). It follows that to
successfully manage multiple resourccs for sus1993). Finally, boundaries
tainability, a broad landscape perspective must be
taken that respects the positive and minimizes the
negative aspects of ownership boundaries. This
point has been emphasized by Spies and others (in
press) in their study of the Coast Range. They
examined potential changes in the Coast Range that
would result if current policies were projected 100
years into the future across multiple ownerships.
Based on simulation results of current policies and
land ownership, they hypothesize that future
biophysical processes will be influenced more by
boundaries and ownership patterns than in the past.
The study is the or-Lly one of its kind in the Coast
Range, and onc of only a few similar studies in the
United States.
ln landscapes with intermingled private and
public ownerships, such as in the Coast Range, some
level of cooperation and consultation amon€;
landowners will be necessary to achieve sustainability. The alternative is landscape-1er.el
management through increased command-andcontrol systems. Command and control is often
used to refer to governmental control of resource
management activities thlough laws and administrative regulations enabled by law (Achterman
1993). There is no doubt that some level of
comrnand and control is necessary and that rt'e l-tave
benefited greatlv from it. The issue, however, is at
what point increasing command and control
becomes deleterious. Consider the much broader
definition of command and control offered by
Meffe (1996). They view it as control to
reduce variation in different aspects of humanhealth
and happiness, including within the contcxt of the
management of natural resources. Their thesis is that
increased command and control in natural resource
management ultimately reduces ecosystem re-
Holling
ar-Ld
silience by reducing the range of natural
variabiliry
ecosystems, and the econornic well-being of
communities har.e resulted from current laws
focused on the management, utilization, and
restoration offorest and stream resources. Likewise,
economically driven errterprises have enabled
communities to prosper and have contributed to an
increasing standard of living. The environmental
community has also contributed by raising public
awareness of important environmental issues.
Command and control becomes a problem when its
influer.rce, whether driven by presen'ation or profit,
decreases the range of natural variability of
ecosystems and landscapes. From a landscape
perspective, pressures exerted by different forms of
command and control should be considered in
aggregate. One key to achieving sustainabilitv is tO
identify an appropriate mix of command-andcontrol measures that does not further reduce the
range of natural r.ariability. However, this issue is
further complicated by the question of hon' long we
can expect to maintain the range ttf natural
variability in the face of a rapidly growing
population.
Feelings about private-property rights and the
public good are equally strong among individuals
on either side of the debate. lt is clear to us that, if
pro€iress is to be made toward achieving sustainability through integrated resource management,
there needs to be a greater understanding among
all participants for the views of those or.r opposing
sides of the private-property rights public values
debate. As long as private-property on'ners perccir.e
their rights as being in jeopardy, and as long as those
advocating for the public good perceive thai public
values ought always to take precedence over
private-property rights, progress will be an uphill
battle. We suggest mucl.r can be learned about
finding common ground and equitable solutions by
studying Knight and Landres (1998), Clark and
others (1999), Hummel and Freet (1999), Johnson
and others (1999), ancl Yaffee (1999). These authors
offer insight to the problems ;rnd solutions associated r,,,' ith achieving goals requiring the
cooperation and collaboraiion of diverse interest
grouPS.
Moving toward Sustainability 253
Conflicting policies anil legal requirements
From
tna-t
To examine some of the challenges that would
be faced in implementing new ideas, consider the
paper written by Reeves and others (1995), in which
they present a new disturbance-based approach to
big-picture perspective, thepolicies and laws
€overn management activities on private and
a
public lands have largely served us well. For
example, the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Endan_
improving Ire:hwater habitat lor anadromous
salmonids (also see Chapter4). The authors contend
that, over the long term, a static system of reserves
is nol in lhe best interecl ofanadromous 5dlmonids.
Rather, they suggest that at a regional scale, areas
of good habitat should shift among watersheds over
gered Species Acts have improved environmental
qrrality and have brought some species populations
(Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, grizzly bear, and
gray
wolf) back to viable levels in some parts oithe
country. On private and slate land>, the Oreson
foresr Practices Act requires prompt reforestaion
following timber harvest and better protection of
riparian areas, although there is debate about
whether current riparian rules are adequate (see
Independent Muit idisciplinary Science ledm I qqs).
In addition, Oregon's land-use laws require careful
planning.
Despite the many positive outcomes attributed
to these and other laws, managers are often
fruslrated by the m) riad of regulations and
adminislrative procedures lhey must deal with.
Depending on circumstances, laws can be confusing
and_or erly compler, presenting manager5 wilh ;
conflicting. potpourri of requirements or differing
rnterpretations by agencies. Their implementation
mav be confounded by deeply held beliefs in
private-property rights, the public good, historical
precedent, differences in agency mandates, and
mtervention by the courts. public agencies often face
coordination difficulties and may somelimes lind
themselves at cross-purposes in pursuing their
respective missions (Sedio et al. 1999.;. Three recent
publications discuss these issues in detail (Meid_
tnger 19q7, iqqS: Mealev 2000r. Mealey (2000),
discussing the integration of science and policv, saw
three.barriers to success[ul]y arhier ing ecosystem
health: prevailing political and administiative
cultures, differences between science and manase_
ment, and legal requirements. Using the Interior
Columbia Bdsin Lcosy5lerri Mana3ement project
(Quigley et al. 1996; euigley and Cole 1992) is a
model, he describes how interpretation of the
Endangered Species. Clean Air, and Clean Water
Acts by different agencies prevented the im_
plementation of management policies recognized as
neces5dry to improve ecosystem health. Allhoueh
Mealev (2000r addressed the barriers in termsll
ecosystem health, we feel the argument he makes
also ha> applicabiliLy to integrated resource
management and achieving sustainability.
a period o[ many years a5; result o[ natur,]l or
anthropogenic disturbances. However, because
wildfire has been largely eliminated as a natural
disturbance factor, the authors propose the use of
timber harvesting to induce the natural processes
a5socidted wilh fish-habitat rejuvenation. .limber
harvesl activity would be concentralecl in fener
watersheds rather than dispersed among many
wa-tersheds. Ecologically appropriate ripu.iu,-,
buffers would be left along fish bearing and selected
non-fish-bearing stre.]ms. Rotation lime between
harvests on any given site would be sreatlv
ircreased, and centers of har\ est activity woJld shiit
among water>hed: over a period ol mdny yedrs.
r lowever, hdr\estacfivity would
be ercjusive ofanr
reserve system where human acliv ily is minimized.
such thdt a spatial and temporal putte.n of timbet.
harvest would more closely mimic historic patterns
of natural disturbance, and, in the long term,
improve fish habitat. Reeves and others (1995) also
d
iscus\ some of the obstacles f hat wou ld
ha ve to be
overcome to implement their approach. For
erample, they discus: the need for people fo thinl
in longer time periods and to rellize lhat
dis_
turbance should be seen as an important, positive
ir fl uence on aqua tic ecosystems. We note that public
accepldnce m igh I be d itficuit as people ha ve itrong
attachments to place and might be unlikely to accepi
short-term disturbance to their favorite places in
erchange for uncertdin ecological benefiLi far into
the future.
Many obstacles would have to be overcome to
implement an idea like thatproposed by Reeves and
others (1995). Key among these would be the issue
of whether state and federal agencies have the legal
authority to allow short-term disturbance in the
interest_ of_ achieving long-term ecological goals,
particularly if such actions might result in the
inciden la I ta king of a species listed as th rea tened or
endangered, or result in temporary failure to meet
legal standards, such as water quaiity standards. If
Forest and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range
agencics do have the authority, their cultures might
impede appropriate actiul. These are issues also
raised by Mealey (2000). Likewise, corporations
might be reluctant or unable to coordinate or
otherwise share timber l.rarvest planning information because of antitrust laws or concern about
pror.'iding information to competitors or drawing
the attention of regulatory agencies. Another
significant obstacle is a lack of trust among
superior results without meeting every cletailed
requrrement.
Decentralization is another positive change seen
by Meiclinger (1998). This trend reflects a shift from
stakeholders. This is sornething not often discussed
upfront among stakel.rolders, but it is present, and
example is the Oregon Plan (State of Oregon 1997).
The fourth trend Meidinger (1998) discusses is
the politicization of information tlrat bears on the
relationshlp between research and polic)r. This trend
rer.olves around increased reliance on science-based
information and the sharing of it in the formulation
of policy. ln the Coast Range, models and data
developed by the Coastal Lar.rclscape Analysis and
Modeling Study (CLAMS; Bettinger et al. 2000; Spies
et al. in press) could provide the basis for evaluating
how clifferent policies migl.rt affect forest and strcam
it
cloes influcnce how or even whcther new
information and ideas lvill be implemented. Eclually
important, this mistrr-rst may in{luence how laws
and regulations are interpreted whcn some latitude
is permitted in the actions that can be taken to meet
thc intent of the law or regulation. As science
changes our understanding of ecosystems and the
sociologv of Lesource management, laws and
adnrinistrative procedures that prevent or slow the
utilization of better information should be
reexamined.
Four policy- and institution-related changcs are
currently underway that rnay influence stewardship
across boundaries (Meidinger 1998). Thesc we see
as essential for successful integrated resource
managemcnt and acl-Lieving sustainability. Meidinger (1998) is careful to note that in some cases lt is
too early to tell whether these policy changes will
have, on balance, positive or negative effects on
stewardship across boundaries. The changes he
describes are (1) privatizatiorr of policy making, (2)
rule to discretion, (3) decentralization, and (4)
politicization of information.
Privatization of policy making refers to a growing
trend of public policy bcing made outside government processes by nongovcrnmental organizations.
He gives examples such as the Applegate Parhter
ship and the Forest Stewardship Council. In his
discussion of rule to discretion, Meidinger (1998)
outlines thc fact that most institutions rely on rules
which are oftcn either over or under-inclusive and
hence do not allow for much flexibility in how they
are intcrpreted ancl enforced. He also makes the
point, also noted by Mealev (2000), that rules may
n,,l b(' compJt ble. n hich placer rnrn;ger. il a
difficult position when it cones to compliance.
Meidnrger (1998) sees a tentative shift toward more
discretionary decision making in which the different
parties negotiate innovative ways to meet the spirit
and general intent of the law to achieve overall
centralized to decentralized policy development
and enforcement. For example, states are assuming
a greater role in policy clevelopment and enforcement, oftcn through voluntary-cctmpliance
programs cleveloped by stakeholders. A good
Iesources.
Some would argue that central to thc problem is
the lack of a clear national policy about the nation's
forests and associated stream resources around
which laws go\/erning management could be
fashioned. It is easy to understand wl.ry the current
system of complex laws and regulations has evoh.ed
when there is no guiding nationaJ policy for the use
and protection of forest and strearn resources. In a
recent report by thc National Research C0uncil
(1998) on nonfedcral forests, a major problem
identified was the absence of a national policy for
these forests. If a national policy rt'crc developed
collaboratively with the states, providing only
general direction, it could allc-rw individual states
to legislate their own re€iulations to meet the spirit
or intent of the national policy. Others r'r'ould
suggest a national policy is unnecessary, and that
any natural resource policies should be solely the
rcsponsibilitv of individual states.
Although there are no casy or readily appalent
solutions to this dilemnla of conflicting policies and
laws, policymakers should consider the barricrs
identified by Mealey (2000) and the changcs
affecting cross-boundary stewardship described by
Meidinger (1998). One ir-Litial step to reduce the
complexity of lal's and the confusiol often
surrounding their interpretation would be the
formation of a commission or other suitable body
to evaluate this issue.
Moving toward sustainability 255
Establishing
a
framework for discussion
There is 5;rowing recognition among public and
private resource managers and policymakers that
varying levels of cooperation, collaboration, and
partnership across ownerships will be necessary to
increase the probability of achieving sustainability.
In addition, there are two things we feel will increase
the chance for success. First, the ability to monitot
assess, and predict biophysical changes and
subsequent socioeconomic effects across broad
landscapes will improve, as will confidence in the
information produced. Better predictive capability
at multiple spatial and temporal scales will
dramatically change our ability to evaluate the
potential consequences of proposed policy changes.
Secondly, increased voluntary and incentive-based
cooperation among landowners and public agencies
on important resource issues will be necessary if
increased command-and-control measures are to be
avoided in the future. Such cooperation will require
innovation, flexibility, and leadership at all levels
of government and in the private sector.
We do feel there are opportunities to make
progress on issues surrounding the management ol
forest and stream resources, such as salmon
populations, water quality, and timber supply in the
Coast Range. In particular, we suggest that formal
or informal partnerships among stakeholders to
50lve conlentious issue> olfer promise.
Establishing a framework for discussion to solve
difficult resource management and policy issues will
take hard work, patience, and dedication. The
principal challenge lies in integrating and reconciling ofien vastly different opinions among
stakeholders. Howe\.et we submit that differing
views on management of forest and stream resources may be a strength rather than a weakness.
The division of influence (political clout) among
interest groups is also important to the balance of
power in the arena of natural resource management
and policy development. Just as biological diversity
is widely seen as an indicator of ecosystem
resilience, socioeconomic and political diversity in
a democratic society are also seen as strengths.
Diversity of opinion and sttongly held views should
not necessarily be seen as insurmountable obstacles
to meaningful and productive discussions that can
result in acceptable solutions to difficult problems.
There are many examples of effective collaboration,
cooperation, and partnership (Ciusti 1994; Glick and
Clark 1998; Hummel and Freet 1999; Johnson et al.
1999). Solufions derived from processes that invol\.e
a wide array of stakeholders representing diverse
views on a particular issue will be more widely
accepted by special-interest groups and the public
at large. The key is providing the necessary
framework for such discussions to occur.
We have developed a list of characteristics or
requirements we feel are necessary for meaningful
discussion to occur among stakeholders with
differing opinions. This is not an exhaustive list, and
although it i* drawn lrom our own erperiences in
Oregon, it has much in common with more
thorough treatments of the topic by others (Shands
1994; Shindler and Neburka 1992; Williams and
Ellefson 1997; Landres 1998; Yaffee 1998, 1999; Clark
et al. 1999; Hummel and Freet 1999). The key
requirements include:
(1) Leadership. Someone needs to take the first
step.
(2) Openness. There should be a common willingness among stakeholders to enter into a
dialogue.
(3) Common oision. There must be a common, big-
picture goal or a clearly defined problem.
(4) Et'fectiue forunr. There should be a forum for
discussion and decision making (watershed
councils, associations, committees, task forces).
(5) WeIl deftned decision-making process. A clear
process for conducting meetings and making decisions needs to be agreed upon by the participants.
(6) Trust. There neecls to be a high level of trust.
Often this only comes with time and positir.e
experiences.
(7) Otunersh ip. Stakeholders need to feel they have
influence (that their opinion counts) and to
recognize that all opinions and perspectives har.e
value.
(8) CIearIy defined spatial scope.The issues need to
be bounded by a clearly defined landscape. We
suggest the watershed is the smallest scale that
should be used.
(9) Adequate lnforftmtiott basc. Information necessary for meaningful discussion must be available.
(10) Respecf and recognition of thc issues of public
good andpriante property rights.Both are strongly held
beliefs considered fundamental to American culture
and legitimized by law.
(71,) Interdisciplinary/ocas. Most issues related to
forest and stream management will require interdisciplinary collaboration.
256
Forest and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range
(72) Disaggregation and
rynthesis. The issue needs
to be broken down into its component parts to
facilitate planning, organization, diviiion of
responsibiliry and accomplishment of the goal. This
approach is commonly used in science. In the
collaborative problem-solving context, the reaggregation of informatior-r developed from the
solution of component problems muy b" ,-r"."rru.y
to address more complex issues (Norris 1995).
Summary
In the last decade, tremendous changes have taken
place that have influenced the management offorest
and stream resources in the Oregon Coast Range.
Implementation of the Northwest Forest pl"an
dramatically changed how Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Managernent iands within the range
of.the northern spotted owl are managed. Duriig
this same period, the technology, recreation, anj
service industries in Oregor.r grew, while the wood_
products industry experienced consolidation.
Oregon's population has also grown, particularly
in the larger metropolitan areas along the I-"5
corridor. Urban growth has brought changing
attitudes about how forest and stream resouicei
should be managed. Increasing numbers of Ore_
gonians hold strong feelings about the importance
or recreatron opportunities, aesthetics, and the well_
berng of fish and wildlife species, and are less wiiling
to accept declines in these values in return for the
productiorr of wood products. Simultaneously,
demand for wood products has grown. These
contrary forces make the formulation of resource
managel_e.1t policy and progress toward achieving
sustainability challenging. However, the use o]
lllegrated resource management, as a loosely
defined decision-making process by which stake_
holders consider the many values and factors that
affect sustainability, does offer promise as a
mechanism for achieving progress in a region that
will continue to experience change.
Under current state and federal policies and
current management practices in the pdvate sector,
forests in the Coast Range will change o.,er the next
100 years. For example, there will be increasing
contrast between federal and industrial forestlandsl
Federal forests will be characterized by increasing
numbers of older stands, while industrial forests wil'i
be considerably younger, with harvests on relatively
short rotations. It has been hypothesized that
existing policies will result in increased edge effects
and decreased size of core areas ovel time (Spies et
al. in press).
Overall, streams of the Coast Range are in
relatively poor condition in terms of habitat quality
for anadromous salmonids and water qualityfor ail
land uses, particularly urban, agricultural, and other
nonforest areas. These areas typically have low_
gradient streams that historically had high fish
productivity. Although recent steps to improve fish_
habitat quality, such as the Oregon plan,iave been
taken, much remains to be done if significant
improvements are to be realized.
The process of integrated resource management
can.provide policymakers with an opportunity to
make significant progress toward achieving
sustainability. However, the hurdles they will face
are many and complex. We do not suggest they are
insurmountable, but they do need to be considered.
This will mean thinking beyond traditional
boundaries and constituencies. Globalization,
population growth, and increasing demand for
natural resources interact in ways that will
increasingly affect communities in the Coast Range.
The world is rapidly becoming more mterconnected
and the welfare of its countries interdependent.
Major shifts in forest and stream resource manage_
ment policy should no longer be made in isolation,
without consideration of the implications beyond
state, regional, or national borders.
As part of the move toward sustainability,
will have to better resolve the public
pri\,rle property right> deb.rte. Although
stakeholders
),olu":
rnere nd\ e Decn numerous precedt.ntr ret in favor
ofthe public good or values, the strongly held beliefs
on both sides of the issue can be obstacles that
should be dealt with in the integrated resource
management process.
Likewise, the myriad of laws, regulations, and
administrative procedures that apply to the
management of forest and stream resources is
complex and confusing. This is a significant problem
that requires attention. Ways need to be ftund to
simplify laws and streamline procedures to facilitate
movement toward sustainabi I ity without sacrificir.rg
important rights and safeguards. Equally importanl
public agencies and private organizations need
greater flexibility in how they choose to interpret
or meet the spirit and intent of specific laws ihat
govern management activities.
Moving toward Sustainability 257
Through the integrated resource management
process/ private and public organizations can
discuss and seek resolution to crucial management
and policy issues. This will take hard work, patience,
and dedication. The challenge lies in integrating and
reconciling what are often vastly different opinions
among stakeholders. However, diversity of opinions
should be viewed as a strength rather than an
obstacle to meaningful discussion and acceptable
solutions to difficult problems. There are numerous
examples of effective collaboration, cooperation,
and partnership among diverse interest groups. The
key is to establish an appropriate framework within
which meaningful discussion and progress can
Borchers, J. C. 1996. A hierarchical context for sustaining
ecosystem health, pp.63-80 in Searcltfor Lt Sollttion:
S stailing the Land, People, atd Econtnny of tlte Blue
Mountains,R- C.laindl and T. M. Quigleli ed. American
Forests, Washington DC.
Bordelon, M A., D. C. McAllistet and R. Holloway. 2000.
Sustainable forestry: Oregon style. /durrnl of ForcstrLl
98(1):26-34.
Bormann, B. T., M. H. Brookes, E. D. Ford, A. R. Kiestet C
D. Oliver, and J. F. Weigand. 1994. Vollune V: A
F rnnu:'taork;t'0r Sustaindble Ecoslste 1Mt ljlget e t.
Gencral Technical Report PNW-CTIi 331, USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwcst Research Station, Portlancl
oR.
occur.
Brooks, D. J. 1997. The outlook for dcmand and supply of
wood: implications for poiicy and sustainable
management. Cant a i]enlth Farcstnl Rc-oieu 76(1):37-
Our ability to achieve sustainability of forest and
stream resources in the Coast Range will be
influenced by many factors, some of which are
beyond the control of local communities. Nonetheless, we are optimistic that significant progress
toward achieving sustainability has occurred and
will continue to occur. A key ingredient to success
will be continued impror.ement in our ability to
integrate, evaluate, and communicate the interplay
Cinnamon, S. K., N. C. fohnson, G. Supcr, J. Nelson, and
D. Loomis. 1999. Shifting human use and expected
clemands on natural resources, pp. 327-343 in Ecological
Stctttardship: A Conunon Rqerencc for Ecosllsteitt
Managcntent, Voltnrc lII,'N.T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C.
Szaro, and N. C. Jol-rnson, ed. Elsevier Science Ltd.,
Oxford UK.
Clark, R. N., G. H. Stankey, P J. Brown, J. A. Burchfield,
R. W. Haynes, and S. F. McCool. 1999. Toward an
ofbiophysical, socioeconomic, and policy {actors as
they affect the quality of life for current and future
generatrons.
Literature Cited
Achterman, C. L. 1993. Pfivate property rights - public
\-alues, pp. 8-18 in Conlnlutlicntions, NntLLrcl Resources,
attd Po/icy, B. Shelby and S. Arbogast, ed. Proceedings,
1993
Starker Lectules, College of Forestrt Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Adams, D. M. 2002. Harvest, in\-enk)ry, and stumpage
pri.ces. lournal of Forestty 100(.2),26-37.
Aplct, C. H., N. Johnson, J. T. Olson, and V A. Sample.
1993. Conclusion: prospects for a susfainable future, pp.
309-311rn Defining SLtstninlble ForcstrV,G. H. Aplet,
N. Johnson, J. T. Olson, ar.rd V A. Sample, ed. Island
Press, Washington DC.
Berg, S., and R. Cantrell. 1999. Sustainable forestr),
initiative: toward a higher standard. /otrnttrl ofForcstry
97(11): 33 3s.
Bettinger, P, K. N. Johnson, J. Brooks, AA. Herstrom, and
T A. Spies. 2000. Plase I Report on Deaeloping Landscape
SitllultifioI Methodologi:s for Assessing the Sustninabilitt/ of
Forest Resources in Westefi Oregon. CLAMS Simulation
Modeling Report, Oregon Department of Forestry,
Salem.
Bcrlsinger, C. L., and K. L. Waddell.1993. Area of OL1.groeth Farests in California, Orcgon, ad Washington.
Resource Bulletin PNW RB-197, USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland OR.
36.
ecological approach: integratir-rg social, economic,
cultural, biological, and physical considerations, pp.
297-318 in Ecologicnl Sfct00rclsltip: AConntton ReJcretre t'or
Ecostlte Mllnngchlt:nt, Voltntt lll,\N.T. Scxton, A. I.
Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Joll.rson, ed. Elsevier
Science Ltd., Oxford UK.
Cohen, J. E. 1999. Human population growth and tradeoffs
in land use, pp. 677-702in Ecolt)gical StetuLtrdsltilt: A
Contntott Reference for E.Lrs!/stc t Mlnngenlrnt, VolLuhe II,
Il. C. Szaro, N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton, and A. J.
Malk, ed. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford UK.
Cubbage, F W. 1995. Regulation of
vatc forest practices:
p
What rithts? Which pol,icies? lotLrnal of Fortsfry 93(6):
14-20.
DeCoster, L. A. 1994. Private propertv rights ancl other
myths. lournal of Fortst'ry 92(5):28-29.
Egan, A. F., and A. E. Luloff. 2000. The exurbanization of
America's forests: research in rural social sciencc.
loLtrna I of
F orcst
ty 98(3):
26-30 .
Ellickson, R. C. 1993. Property and latd.lnle Lau lournnl
102:1315-1400.
Flick, W A. 1994. Changing times: forest owners and the
law.I, nt,tal,,f
Itn'try q2(5)
l0-]1
Flick, W. A., A. Barnes, and R. A. Tufts. 1995. The evolution
of regulatory taking . IoLu nal of Forcstn/ 93(6):21-24.
Floyd, D. W., S. L. Vonhof, and H. E. Seyfang. 2001. Forest
sustainability: a discussion gtride for professional
resource managers. loLtt al of Farestry 99(2):8-27.
Food and Agricultural Organization. 1999. Stlte of the
World's Foresfs. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, http:/ /wwu'.fao.org/ fotestty /FO /
SOFO/SOFO99/sofo99 e.stm (March 16, 2001).
Forest and Streanr Management in the C)regon Coast Rang,e
258
Force,l. E., and C. Fizzell. 2000. Ho$'social values have
affected forest policv, pp. 16 22 in |rocccLiitq af th(
Societv af A teicntl Fdl.sl.rs 1999 NrFid/rul Conoenfion,
Socictv of American Forestcrs, Bethesda MD.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystcrn Managernent Assessment
Team). 1993. l:orssf Ecosllst'ciit Mutntf,cinent: At1 EcoLogicaL,
Econonic, ond Sociol,4ss.ssrr.,iF. Report of the Forest
Ecosystem Managernent Assessmeni Team, U.S.
Covernnrent Printing Off ice 1 973-793-071. U.S.
Covernment Printing Office for USDA Forest Service;
USDT Fish ancl Wilcllife Service, Burearr of Land
Managcmcnt, and Park Scrvicci U.S. Department of
Commerce, National (lceanic and Atnrospheric
Administration and National Marinc Fishcrics Scrvicc;
and the U.S. Environmental Proteciion A€lency.
Portland C)R.
Ciusti, C. A. 1994. Partnerships across bor-lndaries, pp. 42
52 in lrlo...diir,qs, Socicttl o;f Anericnn Fo7csf.,-s 1993
Natinnnl CnnT,cutinlt, Society of Amelican Foresters,
Bethescia MD.
Click, D. A., ancl T. W. Clark. 1998. Overcoming
boundarics: thc grcatcr Ycllou'stonc ccosystcm, pp.
237-256 itl Stctunrdsllip Atrcss Bottndatits, R. L. Knight
and P B. Landres, ed. Island Press, Washingkn DC and
Covelo CA.
Helns, J. A. 1998. T/1. Di.tiotlLtrrl of Fot.st, V. Society of
American Foresters, Bethesda MD.
Holling, C. S., ancl C. K. Meffe. 1996. Comorand and
control ancl the pathology of nab.rral resource
management. Cor?5.rut iLtn Bit ry,y 10(2): 328-337.
Hr-rmmel, M., and B. Freet- 1999- Collaborative processes
for improving land steu'ardship and sustainabilitt pp97 129 ir1. Ecologicnl SteiL,nrdsltilt: ACottuttott ReJerence Jbr
Ecostlstcnt Mnnngrntent, Volroltc Ill,W.T. Sexton, A. J.
Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, ed. Elsevier
Science Ltd., Oxford UK.
lnde!rendent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 1999.
Rccoi,crv of WilLl Saltlrc ids iu Wrsf rru O,-r.qo,l for.sfsi
Oft,{aD Ft 1'st Pra.fi.?s_,4c1 Rr/1.s_ dr.J i//c Mctlsutts in lltt
Or':gLt Plntt;flir Sttlno ntLl Wntcfillcds. Tcchnical Rc'port
1999-1 to thc Orcgon Plan for Salmon antl Watcrshcds,
Govcrnor's Natural Rcsourccs Officc, Salcm.
Johnson, K. M., A. Abec, C. Alcock, D. Bchlcr, B. Culhanc,
K. Holqc, D. Ho\'\,lctt, C,. Martincz, and K. Picarclli.
1999. Managenent perspectives on regional
cooperation, pp. 155 179 in E.oio,tl.dl Stcuarclship: A
CLttrt to tt lTcfcrc ttcc Jbr F,cosV st c u r Mtlr ulgc nrcttt, l/ttl tnuc Il [,
W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson,
ed. Elsevier Science l,tcl., Oxford UKJohnson, R. 1.., R. J. Alig, E. Moore, and R. J. Moulton.
1997. NIPF landor'vncrs' r,iew of regulatiotr. Ia tndL oJ
t t
fol.sr'li
95(1): 23-28.
Kline, J. D., and C. Arnstrong. 2001. Autopsy of a foresiry
ballot iniiiative. /oirrnnl of Forcsh'q 99(5),20 27.
Knight,It. L., and I'. B. Landres (ed.). 1998. Stcuadshill
Across Bou ndaries. lsland Press, Washington DC and
Covelo CA.
Landres, P B. 1998. Integration: a beginning for landscapescale steh'ardship, pp. 337-345 in Siea,ardslrip,4cr?ss
Bo ndd es,R. L.KnighiandP B. Landres, ed. lsland
Press, Washington DC and Covelo CA.
Lettman, C. J., and D. Campbell. 1997.Tit1tber Hart)rstitlg
Practiccs at1 Prirlntr Far.st LitlLl it1 Westrrn Orcgofi.
Oretion Deparhnent of Forestry, Salem.
Lewis, C. 1995. Private property rights: the conflict and the
movement. /orr'r7r1 (yf F ortst r y 93(6): 25-26.
Lippke, B. R., and J. T. Bishop. 1999. The economic
perspectivc, pp. 597-638 n Mnintaitlitlg BiLttlitttrsilV it
For'.sl E.osvsfd,7rs, M. L. I-Iunter, cd. Carnbritlge
Univcrsity Prcss, Cambridgc UK.
Mcalev
S. P 2000. Thc influcnce of scicncc and
technological change on forest management since 1900,
pp. 23 35 in l'lo.cedings of the Socicty af Anrcricnu
folcstr'/s 1999 Natio,rnl Corri.r.rflor, Society of American
Foresters, Bethesda MD.
Meidinger, E. E. 1997. Organizational and legal challenges
for ecosystem management, pp. 361-379 in Cr.rriiT$ r?
F0rtsftv Jar th. 21sl CdltltrV: th. Scidit:t oJ Ecast/strrl
Mnnlgo1t.t1t, K. A. Kohm and J. F. Franklin, ecl. Island
Press, Washington DC and Covckr CA.
Meidinget E. E. 1998. Laws an.l institutions in cross
boundary siewardsl.dp, pp. 87 110 in Sh,irdr"r/sftlp A./oss
BaLoldtlrirs, R. L. Knight and I'. B. Landres, ed. lslar-rcl
Press, Washjntton DC and Covelo CA.
Montre;rl Process Working Croup. 1999it. Tlu' Mrtnlrtnl
Pi-occss. http: / /rl.\\'u,.mpci.org/rvhatis/
evolution e.html (September 25, 2000).
Montreal Prcrccss Working Croup. 1998b. Tltt Monf rnl
Procrss. http: / /wwrv.mpci.org/mcctings/santiago/
santiagol_e.html (September 25, 2000).
Morehouse, B. 1995. A functional approach to bor.lndaries
in the context of environnental isstles. /or,-r7dl o/
tsotulerlntuls Stt!Llie.10t 53 71.
Nainran, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1990. Thc Ecolagv aitu|
MirtLtgcncnt of ALTuaf ic tcffcstrial Ecoto rs. UNESCO
Prcss, Paris-
National Rcscarch Council. 1998. Fotcsled Lnndsc]L)ts ifi
Pcrsprcf i'0e: Prasp.cts t1t1Ll Oppotf tlif lts for St$lnitlnhlr
Mdtlngenrctlt af A let icn's Nonfetleral ForcsFs. National
Acadcmy Prcss, Washingbn DC.
Nchlsen, W, J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichabwich. 1991.
Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from
California, Oregon, Iclaho, ancl Wtrshington. Fis/rrrlcs
16(2): 4-21.
L- A. 1995- Ecosystem management - a science
perspective, pp. 15-18 in Pr-rtcrrrJirrr's Ecosysitnr
Nollis,
Mann\tme t in Wesf(rn Intrrior Faresls, Mny 3-5,1991,
Slokare W,4, Department of Natural Resource Sciences,
Washinllbn State Univefsity, Pullman WA.
Noss, R. F. 19E7. From plant comn-runities io landscapes ir1
conservation inventories: a look at the Natr-ue
Conservancl' (USA). tsiologicol Conser--ntion 11.71 37.
Oregon Department of Forestrv. 2000. Ore,qorr'.s Firsi
Approxitfinfion Rcpotf fot Fot tsl Sustnitnbll|i-y. Oregon
Department of Forestrv Snlem.
Forest and Stream Management in the Oregon Coast Range
edited by
Stephen D. Hobbs,lohn P. Hayes, Rebecca L. lohnson, Gordon H. Reeaes,
Thomas A. Spies,lohn C. Tappeiner II, and Gail E. Wells
Oregon State University Press
Corvallis
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence
and durability of the Committee on Production Cuidelines for
Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources and the
minimum requirements of the American National Standard for
Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials 239.48-198+
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Forest and stream management in the Oregon coast range
edited by Stephen D. Hobbs ... let al.1.
P. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-87071-544-5 (alk. paper)
1. Ecosystem management--Oregon. 2. Forest ecology-Oregon.3. Stream ecology--Oregon. I. Hobbs, Stephen D
QH76.5.O7 F67 2002
333
.75'09795-dc77
2002002680
O 2002 Oregon State University Press
All rights reserved. First edition
2002
Printed in the United States of America
Oregon State University Press
10.1 Waldo Hall
Corvallis OR 97331-6407
511-737 -3166 . fax 547-737-3170
http:,/ /oregonstate.edu/dePt/press
/